webbles

No, it isn't a rhetorical question. I agree that they can't determine whether an alleged ancient artifact really was ancient. But these men would probably recognize a simple forgery. They know their metals. They felt, touched, hefted, inspected the plates. If Joseph made something out of tinplate, wouldn't they have been able to realize that? Tinplate has a different feel, sound, texture, etc. These men have probably touched tinplate most of their lives. Yet, they did not believe the plates were tinplate. So, if they are telling the truth, then it can't be made out of tinplate. I'm not asking for the witnesses to be expert witnesses in ancient artifacts. But I would consider them expert witnesses in metals that they've worked with. And none of them said that the metal in the plates was normal to them. With Voree and Kinderhook, it was said to be normal metal. The Law of the Lord (from Strang) was specifically explained to be from the Brass plates. But the golden plates are called "with the appearance of gold" or "not quite as think as common tin" (this phrase really hurts the idea of it being tinplate). The witnesses seem to be reaching for a way to describe this unknown metal to them.

I would expect ChatGPT to consider that image to be modern. Because it is modern. Even if you made it with tinplate in the 1820s, you couldn't get it that uniform. So the image was pulling the AI in a specific direction. This is a really bad answer. Dan Vogel even points out the issue with this. There is going to be voids between the plates. You can't lay them down with no gaps, especially if you are doing 1820s cutting. So there wouldn't be 475 plates and it wouldn't be near as heavy. In fact, Dan's test with tinplates and 6 inch tall stack ended up being under 40 lbs, which was lighter than what the witnesses said. He overcomes that difficulty by saying it is hard to estimate weight and so they were just over estimating. And would any of the witnesses recognize this? The other 2 known plate discoveries (Voree and Kinderhook) were recognized as a specific material. Why didn't the 8 ever say, "yeah, they were made out of brass" or "it was tinplate with a gold varnish"? Almost all of the 8 witnesses were older than Joseph with a lot more experience with metals. Why not ask ChatGPT what it thinks about a 21 year old making plates out of common material that could fool several older men (including ones he only met 3 weeks before) that it ancient, had a golden appearance, and was not a common metal.

In the fictional universe, there is a total of 6 sets of plates. The Brass Plates, Neph's large plates, Nephi's small plates, Zeniff's plates, Ether's gold plates, and Mormon's/Moroni's Golden Plates. I would not say "everybody wrote on metal plates" when the vast majority of those in the Book of Mormon never appear to have written on metal plates. The small plates does record several people writing on plates, though most are pretty limited in what they write, but pretty much everything from Mosiah until Mormon, there is no mention of writing or even creating metal plates. Mormon does mention pulling things of the large plates from time to time so there is some writing, but he also references other records so how much the final Book of Mormon is abridged from writings on metal plates is unknown.

I believe you are quoting the testimony from the Voree plates, not the Book of the Law. The testimony from the Book of the Law is: No angels involved.

Technically, he had more than 4 years. If it is a hoax, why start only 4 years ago? But tinplates is not something you buy unless you are a tinsmith or doing roofing. Sure it is doable for him to do it, but it is less probable. Then we have to add that the 8 witnesses did see the plates (I find Dan's argument that it was covered in cloth and was a visionary experience really weak). So it didn't look like tin to them. They know what tinplate is.

100% agree. The 8 witnesses tell us nothing about the Book of Mormon except that Joseph had metal plates that were good enough to look ancient. The 3 witnesses (and Mary Whitmer) are the ones to authenticate the Book of Mormon since they involve the supernatural. Sure, people can come to different conclusions. I doubt the plates being subjected to a more scientific examination would help. Because we still have the problem that an angel told Joseph where they were. Plates can't be dated. Even if it was made of tumbaga, we would be debating on whether Joseph or someone in the area knew about that. Even if I could definitively prove that the plates were actual ancient artifacts, the problem of "it seems of little importance to God for people to find the gospel while mortal." still exists as well. So the reality of the plates wouldn't change your opinion since you have other reasons to disbelieve.

Another problem that Dan's theory has is that he points to tinplates because of the green coloring that Stowelll saw. Yes, the document about roofing says that they sometimes paint the tinplate green, but that is after installation. You don't buy pre-painted tinplates. So the theory would have Joseph buying raw tinplates, painting them green, and then declaring them to be gold. Since he is already painting them, why not paint them yellow to match his story better.

I've tried to find good sources for production of tinplate in the US and they always say it is in the later 1800s, not the early 1800s. I've seen things like this statement but with no documentation. So I'm pretty certain the US had no tinplate manufacturing. They might have had some really small, handmade manufacturing, but the vast majority of tinplate would be imported. I agree that tinplated stuff was available to purchase but that is not what Dan is arguing for. He is arguing that Joseph had raw tinplates and cut them himself. That is not a common thing you purchase. You purchase tinplate goods, not raw tinplate. The tinsmith in Palmyra might have some (if there is a tinsmith there) but Joseph and his family would have no need to buy tinplate. That would be a uncommon thing and should have shown up in the documentation evidence.

He says the 8 witnesses didn't actually see the plates. They saw it with "spiritual eyes" through a sheet. He quotes the Stephen Burnett letter and a statement from John Whitmer for his reasoning.

I don't believe tinplate shingles were common. The book that he references can be read at https://inspectapedia.com/exterior/Metals-in-Historic-Buildings-NPS.pdf. It says that it was used mostly in cities and public buildings. Tin was an imported product and so would be more expensive. The US didn't start producing its own tin till the late 1800s. It is probably that no house in Palmyra would have tin roofing, as the town is too rural. Or if it did, there wouldn't be stacks of tin lying about. It would be a custom order as it would be shipped from overseas. Makes it a bit unlikely for Joseph to have them.

After you saw these plates, did any friends or acquaintances come up to you and ask you what you saw? Did you tell them that it was comically cheap prop? Or did you not realize it then? Because the 11 witnesses were asked about their experience multiple times by friends and critics. And yet, they kept insisting it was a real thing. In some cases, they went out of their way to correct a misunderstanding.

It actually sounds like we are mostly in agreement. You agree that Joseph had some metal plates. That's what I'm arguing for. I'm saying that the reaction to the Voree and Kinderhook plates show, to me, that Joseph had metal plates. They were real enough to convince the witnesses. The 8 witnesses weren't hoodwinked or made to "spiritually" view the plates. They actually got to touch them and found them to be real metal plates. That's all I'm arguing about. I have a hard time believing that Joseph could have made them, but I definitely believe people at the time could definitely make them. See the Kinderhook and Voree plates for an example. It would be a lot more effort, but is definitely possible. But that starts to go into the realm of a conspiracy of people making the Book of Mormon and every avenue I've tried with those theories end up with lots of issues. Some of the 8 witnesses were definitely involved earlier (Hyrum, Joseph Sr, Samuel) but most of them would have been completely new to Joseph and the Book of Mormon. The only knowledge they would have had before June 1829 is from letters from Oliver Cowdery. It would appear that all of them were interested but they weren't friends or intimate acquaintances of Joseph. They participated in the coming forth but I think you have the order backwards. They were nobodies to Joseph before he selected them to be the witnesses. He didn't do a deep evaluation of who should see it. It almost feels like he just picked the people available. If he and Oliver hadn't moved in with them, it would probably have been a different set of people.

That the Book of Mormon isn't an ancient historical record. As for why I'd love that, it is complicated and doesn't really have anything to do with the church or even Joseph Smith.

No, I'm not seeing the Voree Plates must be a hoax and Joseph's plates must be real. But it gives us an indication of the effort it would take for Joseph to create the hoax. Most attempts to explain away the plates is to say they were just a quick facsimile, like painted wood or tin with a yellow paint. But it had to have been more, since the men of the day could see that. With Voree and Kinderhoook, they could tell what material it was (both were brass). For Joseph's plates, it is "gold-like" (some say pure gold, some say an alloy, some say it has the appearance of gold). So what ever Joseph used, it wasn't a common metal that they would recognize as a fake. You've mentioned before of how Joseph showed them to close friends. I don't think we can consider the Whitmers to be close friends. Joseph first heard about David Whitmer when Oliver Cowdery showed up in April 1829. He didn't actually meet him till end of May 1829. He met the whole Whitmer family by the beginning of June 1829. And he showed them the plates by the end of June 1829. That's a really short time to be friends and trust them into this fraud. I believe Joseph had something. It was similar to the Voree plates and the Kinderhook plates but was larger, more extensive, and with different material. Why Joseph went through this process just to not use it, I don't know. How he could have done that at his age and situation, I don't know. I can't figure out a naturalistic theory that makes sense for what Joseph did. He was both stupid (spend all this time to create a supposedly ancient artifact that he would never use) and smart (show them to witnesses and then make them disappear). I've tried and keep trying. I'd love for it to be naturalistic. But I just can't find one that makes sense to me.

Thanks for pointing that out. I keep forgetting he had two sets of plates. I think it still shows that Joseph had something that could convince the 8 that it was real and ancient. It wasn't painted wood or thinly painted tin. It was something that the witnesses could see was gold-like and ancient.

The 8 witnesses of the Book of Mormon and the 4 witnesses of the Voree Plates are really similar (the 3 witnesses of the Book of Mormon are in a completely different category). The two groups just testify that they physically interacted with "ancient" artifacts. I don't think anyone doubts that the Voree plates exists (whether or not they are ancient is another matter). So if we compare the two, that should mean we shouldn't doubt that the 8 witnesses saw something that they physically handled. And this something was well built enough to convince them, just like the Voree plates were able to convince the 4 witnesses (and others that looked at it later). It wasn't just a thinly painted set of tin plates. Or it wasn't something with a sheet covering it that Joseph then convinced the 8 men to "spiritually" see them. It was something they actually handled and was convincing enough to make them believe it was made out of golden materials. So, if we compare the two artifacts and assume both are fabricated, I think it makes it less plausible for Joseph to have fabricated it. The Voree plates are only 3 plates with engravings on both sides. Supposedly the unsealed portion of the Golden Plates were quit a bit more (I've seen estimates from 12 plates to 300 plates). The Voree plates are much, much smaller than the Golden Plates, so a single Golden Plate by itself contains almost all 6 of the Voree Plates. And Strang would be in his 30s when he fabricated them while Joseph would be in his teens when he fabricated them. To fabricate several dozen plates, with writings on all of them, in a manner that men of that time would believe, that feels like a stretch for Joseph to have done. Since Strang only did 3 very small plates, it could be a point showing how hard it is to fabricate lots of plates even with more resources. The Kinderhook plates is another good example of the difficulty in fabricating lots of plates. The Kinderhook plates only had 6 plates (double the Voree plates) and about twice as big as the Voree plates. But still almost half the size of the Golden Plates. And this is someone who is purposely fabricating the plates. I think this shows how hard it is to actually fabricate decent plates that people of the time would believe. Which makes it harder to accept that Joseph fabricated 12+ plates with the intention to only show to a very few set of people. That's a lot of effort that all other known fabricators didn't attempt to do.

We believe that the only priesthood authority on Earth is found in the Church. But we don't believe that we are the only ones with faith/belief or that our faith/belief is somehow stronger just because we have priesthood authority. There are other Christians who are much better than current members. We don't have a monopoly on good people. Nor do we have a monopoly on miracles. Nor do we have a monopoly on revelations/inspirations. You seem to be focusing on the here and now. Just because I'm baptized by someone with priesthood authority doesn't mean I have an automatic "get-in Celestial Kingdom card". And just because someone hasn't been baptized by authority doesn't mean they have an automatic "left-out-of Celestial Kingdom card". We are a fairly universalist church. We believe that everyone will have the chance. So you (I'm assuming you are not a member) could be in the Celestial Kingdom and I could not. It depends on each person. Yes, we believe you have to be baptized by authority but we are doing that by proxy for everyone so no one misses out on that requirement.

The Church never bought the Salamander letter. Every time Hoffman attempted to sell it to the church, they declined. They didn't find it valuable enough or worth the cost. It was Steven F. Christensen who bought it, then had it authenticated, and then donated it to the church. And even in the statement about it, the church was really wishy-washy but just said that they trust the experts who say it was authenticate. Honestly, it is the Blessing of Joseph Smith III document that you should have brought up. That episode looks more like the church trying to hide the document and it was also forged. That would fit your argument better.

It says "popes and priests". So it isn't just focused on the Catholic church. And that reference in the temple isn't talking about the abominable church. It is talking about ways that Satan can influence us. Were there popes that did bad things? Yes, even Catholics acknowledge that. Who are you referring to as "including the newest member"? And I know that it was taught. I remember discussing this with my Catholic friend when I was less than 10.. I'm saying that it wasn't doctrine and anytime it reached wide spread (such as Mormon Doctrine) it was pushed back.

Is 3 Nephi the main place this shift occurs? Or are the other shifts that happen in earlier/later books? And does he shift only one way (non-archaic -> archaic) or does he shift both directions?

The 1st edition of Mormon Doctrine said that and was practically banned by the leadership (McConkie was not an apostle at the time). It was not allowed to be printed past the first printing. McConkie did somehow get permission to do a 2nd edition with massive changes. Basically everything about the Catholic church being the abominable church was stripped out of it. So, yes there are people who believe and teach that the Catholic church is the abominable church but it is definitely not doctrine.

Where does it say the Brass Plates had rings in it? I don't recall any description in the Book of Mormon about what they look like.

I think those that talk at youth conferences probably have more impact than the General Young Men's Presidencies. At least for me as a kid, I knew about those speakers more than I knew about the presidencies. Wilcox is a mix of both. He spoke at Especially for Youth conferences and similar and then was called to be a counselor in the Young Men's Presidency. It would be like if Bytheway was called to the Young Men's presidency. I also asked my sons if they knew who the Young Men's General Presidency and they weren't even aware they existed. They knew of the ward presidency and the stake presidency but did not know anything about the general presidency. I bet they might have heard some things from those men but nothing that stood out to them.

I went to that link about Holy Week and I don't see it discussing Holy Week in the traditional sense. It feels like you are trying to make mockery of what Holy Week is to traditional Christians. It is a big week with things every day. we don't do that. We only do things on Sunday and barely that. Our Easter Sunday meeting is nothing compared to services in other denominations. We don't observe Holy Week.

I know of a few Latter-day saints who have done the more traditional Christian observations for Holy Week (Ash Wednesday, Lent, etc) buy they are rare. Buy I don't see the conflict you see. We don't observe Holy Week in the traditional sense of Lent, Good Friday, Ash Wednsday and the rest. Calling it Holy Week is not the same as traditionally observing it. There is quite a bit to the traditional observances which we don't do.